56
Meta accused of breaking EU digital law by charging for ad-free social networks
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
1348 readers
178 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Speaking of which, is this legal?
I think this banner has been dubbed 'Pay or OK'
I've never read an answer from an attorney specializing in GDPR, but I've been seeing this for years. It's very popular in Germany and seems to have spread to the rest of the EU.
I assume it's catching on more recently because I've started to see people asking about it online more frequently.
In my layman's understanding, it's compliant with the law because they still provide a way to opt out of cookies and no one is entitled to read their articles for free.
So the choice is pay or allow tracking.
Tbh, you can easily just open the link in an incognito window, or if you're paranoid, an incognito/private window of a browser you never use. Then once you close the window, their cookies get wiped anyway.
You pay with your privacy, which I believe isn't permitted (Don't quote me, I don't know anything). It's basically the same thing Meta is doing. If you could see the ads without the additional tracking (ie. generalized ads) that would be fine.